The more I hear about Discovery the more my excitement for a new Star Trek series wanes. I will still give it a shot but I'm not very hopeful that it's going to be any better than the JJ Abrams reboot at this point, which while entertaining at times, was not Star Trek in anything but window dressing and character names.

This one I will not even "give a chance". From the ugly ship design to the ENTERPRISEish uniforms and Spock's sudden sibling, there is nothing that calls out to me, and a whole lot that pushes me away.

I chuckled a bit when they came to the room-full-of-continuity-experts part. That's basically saying 'We can't be bothered to know what happened chronologically before or after this series is set but we're not beneath paying a pack of monkeys a pittance to watch thousands of hours of television".

The dichotomy over who has the rights to what blows my mind, especially when one arm of the franchise has to pay the other leg to use things like tribbles and the communicator sound effects.

That was an interesting video but in general I have stopped following all the Star Trek news regarding the new series or any upcoming movie.

I honestly don't mind the main character being a woman or there being a homosexual person on the crew (though I think the writers will be going to bring that up repeated, that being this character's defining characteristic, even writing the character like a bit of a stereotype), I am just not interesting to see any storylines involving the character pursuing relationships because I am straight myself. Plus I have never really been that big a fan of romantic sub plots.

What I dislike is the period it is set in, the design of everything (ships, costumes, alien appearances), the obvious retcons, the focus or "war Trek" (I think this is done because Game of Thrones is big at the moment), and of course that this show is obviously meant for fans of the JJ Abrams movies and not fans of the previous five shows.They will throw those fans a bone so to speak to acknowledge them but that is going to be it.

Edit: it is very likely that this show will be set in yet another new timeline.

It kind of speaks of Paramount's faith in this project if they are truly working on a contingency plan. Perhaps it is time for them to accept that without access to the original series material they are in general sunk.

On another note I am also rather disappointed that IDW has not announced any new upcoming Star Trek comic releases next to their "regulars" and the current Mirror TNG mini series.I don't mind that the TNG-Aliens crossover got canceled as I found it a bit of a ridiculous idea (though I had been thinking on how I would have made it work, basically the Romulans seeking to use the xenomorphs as a weapon against the Borg Collective and it of course not going as planned. It would be pretty comic book trope stuff), but it seems for now it seems they are solely focusing on Boldly Go and Discovery (and New Visions every two months).

I honestly don't mind the main character being a woman or there being a homosexual person on the crew (though I think the writers will be going to bring that up repeated, that being this character's defining characteristic, even writing the character like a bit of a stereotype), I am just not interesting to see any storylines involving the character pursuing relationships because I am straight myself. Plus I have never really been that big a fan of romantic sub plots.

++++++++++

As I have noted before, a big and early red flag for this show was the whole "diversity" push. The earliest information was not about story points or character traits, but rather how the show would be "diverse". As if that's somehow breaking new ground. Or breaking new ground for TREK.

Excuse me, but I believe TOS had a diverse cast, back in '66, and didn't make it into a selling point, or something to generate headlines and publicity. They just did it. No big deal. They were instead focused on story and character, as they rightly should have been.

In today's increasingly backwards popular culture, it seems that genre properties, including STAR TREK, must be all things to all people. "Diversity" and appealing to demographics at the cost of organic storytelling. Flashy visuals and gritty action over story and character.

STAR TREK is arguably one of the finest storytelling platforms ever devised. You can go anywhere and do anything, as long as it's an honest attempt to explore the human condition within an exciting action-adventure-drama framework. Rethinking and/or rebooting that simple and elegant storytelling platform is like trying to reinvent the wheel.

At times like this I try to remind myself what I loved about Star Trek the first time round, when I was watching as a young boy and everything was so much simpler: A spaceship turns up at a planet and the crew goes down to take a look around and gets into an adventure.

When was it set? The future.Does Ensign Smith have sexual relations with a Gorn when he's off duty? Don't know, don't care.Hey, aren't those aliens using the same spaceship some other aliens used last season? Don't worry about a prop, enjoy the story!

There are days when I'd like to take all those Trek encyclopedias and continuity guides and throw them on a bonfire! All I wanted was for the USS Enterprise to take me into outer space for 50 minutes a week, and it succeeded in doing so magnificently. Speaking for myself, I haven't enjoyed any of the later iterations anywhere near so much as the original, mainly because they spent too much time worrying about the wardrobe when they should have been exploring Narnia. Discovery looks to be more of the same.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: JJ Abrams and his crew certainly know how to get science-fiction movies and shows made. He's the go-to guy for studios who don't want their properties in languish in "development hell". Unfortunately Abrams has yet to learn how to make a good science fiction story.

As I have noted before, a big and early red flag for this show was the whole "diversity" push. The earliest information was not about story points or character traits, but rather how the show would be "diverse". As if that's somehow breaking new ground. Or breaking new ground for TREK.

Excuse me, but I believe TOS had a diverse cast, back in '66, and didn't make it into a selling point, or something to generate headlines and publicity. They just did it. No big deal. They were instead focused on story and character, as they rightly should have been.

In today's increasingly backwards popular culture, it seems that genre properties, including STAR TREK, must be all things to all people. "Diversity" and appealing to demographics at the cost of organic storytelling. Flashy visuals and gritty action over story and character.

----

Counterpoint: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"

Roddenberry was pushing his liberal-humanistic agenda with his show. There were more than a few episodes that were ham-fisted. I don't think there's anything wrong with having an agenda—plenty of good science fiction are morality tales and allegory for current social ills—as long as you have good writers to back it up. TOS had writers versed in that language.

Roddenberry was pushing his liberal-humanistic agenda with his show. There were more than a few episodes that were ham-fisted. I don't think there's anything wrong with having an agenda—plenty of good science fiction are morality tales and allegory for current social ills—as long as you have good writers to back it up. TOS had writers versed in that language.

+++++++++

Counter-counterpoint: That episode--and that season--suck, and Roddenberry's involvement was minimal, by that point. There are far better (and more subtle) morality tales in the first two seasons. The third season is very much what the general public perceives TREK to be: campy, ham-fisted, and low-budgeted.

And, telling stories about morality and diversity are not the same thing as building the series' primary characters to be "diverse" instead of being characters. What are their hopes/dreams/fears/personalities? Who are they as people?

The races and backgrounds of the main TOS characters were treated as inconsequential, except when it spoke to character, like Spock being mocked as a halfbreed when he as was a child. But, that was not his defining characteristic, just a bit of background which shaped him into the logical, repressed character that we know and love.

I have yet to hear anything really about the DISCOVERY characters. Who are they? What are their personalities? It's just been "Asian Woman Captain, Black Woman With a Man's Name, Gay, Alien", etc., etc.

Playing the diversity card with TREK is just a fallacy. All of the previous iterations have broken ground, but it's never been solely about that. Sisko, a Black Captain? No big deal. Janeway, a female Captain? No big deal. Those previous shows were more about story and characters than making headlines with diverse and/or controversial casting. Each show featured diverse ensembles of characters who acted and were treated as equals, and it wasn't a big deal. Which is how it should be.

Agendas aren't the problem. Roddenberry and company had plenty of agenda that they pursued, be they war, religion, etc. The problem is when agendas and controversy take the place of solid storytelling and characterization, like a shroud that disguises a lack of creativity. TREK is "been there, done that", in terms of cast diversity. So, what is this show actually about, then? War? Exploration? Action? Morality? What is the show's thesis statement? I have yet to see any real sort of answer.

Agendas aren't the problem. Roddenberry and company had plenty of agenda that they pursued, be they war, religion, etc. The problem is when agendas and controversy take the place of solid storytelling and characterization, like a shroud that disguises a lack of creativity. TREK is "been there, done that", in terms of cast diversity. So, what is this show actually about, then? War? Exploration? Action? Morality? What is the show's thesis statement? I have yet to see any real sort of answer.

------

Lackluster trailer aside, what about the content of the show makes you say that storytelling was sacrificed? This show's—ANY show's—thesis statement will be made when it airs. I mean, with Bryan Fuller gone, I don't have any real faith in the show will be any good, but deciding what the content did or did not do based on the show's PR is silly and futile.

It's all still speculation at this point, of course, but a lot of shows at least give some indication of what they'll be about before they air. Some indication of what the premise is.

The other shows all had clear and simple premises which were part of the pre-release marketing. TOS: The Enterprise is exploring the galaxy. TNG: The Enterprise is exploring the galaxy. DS9: A Starfleet crew takes charge of an enemy space station which has strategic value. VOYAGER: Voyager is stranded in the Delta Quadrant, and is trying to get home. ENTERPRISE: The first mission of Earth's first long-range starship.

Aside from teases that this is a gritty TREK reboot, there's been precious little to hang onto, beyond visuals and casting. A human raised on Vulcan transfers to a new ship. Klingons are running around. Battle stuff. That's pretty much it.

"Shove diversity, crew fistfights, LGBTQRomuloKlingons, explosions and lens flares in a box and shake well. It'll be the show everyone and their cat will be talking about for this finanical quarter! Must-Stream-IPTV!"

<cell phone rings>

"Yeah... what? WHAT?! Eight years ago?! I've never heard of Stargate Universe! Did that have MacGuyver in it?"

I've only been following news on the show sporadically (mostly through Midnight's Edge and TREKMovie.com), and I can't sum up the show in one sentence. Is it the story of Michael Burnham? The origin of the cold war with the Klingons?

From a marketing standpoint, there's really been nothing to latch onto, besides the casting and the visuals. No clear sense of who the main characters are and what they're doing. If it's gonna be another TOS/TNG-ish "starship having adventures on different planets" series (with an overarching plot involving the Klingons), okay, but that hasn't been made clear at all.

Which, for a show that will already have a limited fanbase (due both to being part of an existing franchise, and being available only through a pay-streaming service), is not the best way to market it.

I can't recall many shows generating greater negative buzz prior to even airing a single episode. COP ROCK, maybe? But that show wasn't delivered years late and wasn't a sequel to a beloved cash cow franchise. TOS may not have been an initial commercial success and ST BEYOND pretty much tanked but no Trek series since TOS has gone less than 98 episodes (all the rest went seven seasons) and the TV syndication dollars all told tallies into many hundreds of millions. If half of the bad mojo turns out to be right about DISCOVERY, this is tracking as a truly epic, all-time failure. Based on what I've heard I think I'd rather they just forego this 15 episode disaster and move ahead with the Nicholas Meyer second season.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum